I admit to not knowing a lot about Romania's socio-economic and political history, but I'm pretty sure that Ceausescu was killed because he was a horrible dictator. Whenever you're killed by your own people, that's a pretty good indication.

Uh, Ceausescu and his wife ran the country's finances like their own private bank account. He also used his position to get away with raping wives. The Romanians hated them so much tens of thousands of them volunteered for the firing squad. When the execution time came, they didn't even wait for the signal and shot the bastards on sight.

In 1989 Romanians, like everybody else in the Iron Curtain, finally rose up against Communism. Ceausescu gave the order to his army to fire on the soldiers, however, his defense minister refused to implement the order and died under mysterious circumstances. When word reached the army about the order and death of the minister, the army conducted what was the only military coup of the 1989 revolutions and removed Ceausescu from power.

There is a REASON why Ceausescu and his wife's execution was the highest rated television event in Romanian history.

One of his palaces is bigger than Pentagon.His dog had his own hotel suite and limousine.One of Romania's embassies had a room coated with gold. His people were starving to death.I don't think that's what Marx had in mind, exactly...

When your army AND your police force join the rebels at the first opportunity, It's nature's way of telling you you are doing it wrong...

It always gets me a little mad when you Westerners praise Ceausescu as a good commie leader because he was willing to bargain with First World powers. Romania really had bad luck with the whole communism deal, almost all of its neighbours had relatively benign dictators at that time.

That douchebag Ceausescu is nowhere near being "infinitely better" than the corporate imperialists who have replaced him but the replacements are not much better either. They just allow more of the "Illusion of Choice" as Noam Chomsky and George Carlin called it:

That's always been the liberal democratic (and now corporatist Neoliberal/Neoconservative) lure to claim it's better than Stalinist/Maoist regimes - because it uses "soft power" (illusion of choice, manufactured consent and co-opting the public through social programs and unionized workplaces) while the Bolsheviks relied on "hard power" (democratic centralism, secret police, information blackouts, state secrets, etc.).

IMHO it's ultimately all a scam to put an elite class in power. Capitalists want the capitalist/owner class in power and State Socialists want the bureaucratic/technocratic/intelligentsia class in power. Both of whom intend to get rich off the working/middle class. Ceausescu had mansions the envy of the Pentagon but so do millionaires in Romania now.

Uh, when did any westerner praise Ceausescu once it became known what a douchenozzle he was?"

Romania, during the Communist period 1958 onwards is known for having a maverick foreign policy that does not toe the Soviet line. eg. they condemn the 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia, have diplomatic relations with the FRG, etc. The west loved that they are prepared to stick it to the ussr, in short. Romania had most favoured nation trading status with the US till 1988. it's not until late in the communist period, mid/late 80s ish, that the west is more vocal in criticising the human rights abuses of the regime.

When I saw that episode of Top Gear a while back, it became even clearer why Romanians were lining up for duty on the firing squad. That whole episode was in fact an eye-opener.

Not only was that road-to-nowhere built at great financial expense in a country that couldn't afford it, people died building it. I'd wager that their loved ones got f*ckall by way of compensation, though I am only guessing here.

I think I am right in saying that Romania abolished the death penalty almost before the bodies of Mr and Mrs Ceausescu had stopped twitching. There's something almost delightfully ironic about that.